The post you are reporting:
I watched a very poor Sky programme last night where the three protagonists proved to be much of a muchness. Last night there was no clear winner but the hosting was so poor and the online broadcsting via Sky/BBC World News was abysmal, it is not surprising therefore that one was left feeling "why did I bother"?
My assessment of the three stooges? Gordon Brown did better but looks tired and a man of the past who has mightily screwed up the country and who I think, recognises he has created a trust issue, but cannot work out how to overcome that millstone round his neck. His comments about leading Britain into recovery subliminally highlighted the fact that he took us into the worst recession in our lifetime. Why would we even think about trusting him again.
Nick Clegg was good but some of the policies re immigration really didn't stand up to scrutiny. He held his ground well considering the other two clearly wanted to put him in his place. Even a stupid question about the Daily Telegraph article, crucified by the Beeb earlier in the day for being inaccurate and probably deserving of an apology, didn't throw him off track. However, he looked more lightweight last night, and round three will possibly be a step too far. We will see.
David Cameron was much more assured until he started bleating on about the big nation, or was it the film The Big Country, I can't remember. Sadly, a much improved performance was totally undone by having nothing punchy to say that would strike an immediate chord with the voters. For round three he needs to lose gloss and gain content.
Well, that's how I saw things last night. This morning a bubbly Charlie and his team knocked on my door and chatted to "she who must be obeyed". They may have swung her vote by at least bothering coming to talk to us.
